Those manufacturers claim a better gas seal around the projectile, and reduced friction between the barrel and the projectile, resulting in ever so slight increases in projectile velocity and reduced wear on the barrel.

Comparative charts seem to support their claims.

In my recent exploration of all-things-1911, I've discovered that you can get eveything from training wheels to photon torpedos to trick out your 1911. There seems to be no limit to what you can do to it (even if you perhaps shouldn't)

One thing I have NOT seen.... aftermarket polygon barrel for 1911.

Yall have been at this 1911 thing a lot longer than I. Anybody ever see one of the polygon barrels out there for the 1911? If so, could you point me the right direction?

__________________"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less." - Gen. Robert E. LeeRLTW!"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine

NONE of these things were designed by John Browning. But That doesnt necessarily mean that they are "Bad"....or pointless. The go-to response of "If John M. Browning didnt design it, it doesnt need to be done" is REALLY tiresome.

Browning was a damn good engineer on the 1911 and many other weapons. But he wasnt a GOD. The evolution...or simple modification of the design doesnt STOP with him. One of the greatest beauties of his brain-child is how well it adapts to our CENTURY of modifications of ALL sorts. Making his basic platform our own personal, unique expressions of what we want.

Browning accomplished engineering immortality by thinking outside the box and not accepting established traditionalism as a limit to his design. I would hope that his open mindedness would serve as an example to those who spend so much time praising his genius. Deservedly so.

I've made three posts which have explored non-traditional thinking. NONE have said that anyone else's beliefs are "wrong" but it seems to act like a lightning rod for other to jump in there and tell me that anything different from what everyone else does....is wrong.

seems to me it would be kinda depressing living life with such exceptionally narrow perspective.

I'd think folks would be more open to exploring alternative ideas....especially if someone else is willing to be the guinea pig.

NONE of these things were designed by John Browning. But That doesnt necessarily mean that they are "Bad"....or pointless. The go-to response of "If John M. Browning didnt design it, it doesnt need to be done" is REALLY tiresome.

Browning was a damn good engineer on the 1911 and many other weapons. But he wasnt a GOD. The evolution...or simple modification of the design doesnt STOP with him. One of the greatest beauties of his brain-child is how well it adapts to our CENTURY of modifications of ALL sorts. Making his basic platform our own personal, unique expressions of what we want.

Browning accomplished engineering immortality by thinking outside the box and not accepting established traditionalism as a limit to his design. I would hope that his open mindedness would serve as an example to those who spend so much time praising his genius. Deservedly so.

I've made three posts which have explored non-traditional thinking. NONE have said that anyone else's beliefs are "wrong" but it seems to act like a lightning rod for other to jump in there and tell me that anything different from what everyone else does....is wrong.

seems to me it would be kinda depressing living life with such exceptionally narrow perspective.

I'd think folks would be more open to exploring alternative ideas....especially if someone else is willing to be the guinea pig.

+1

__________________ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Prima di tutto, essere armati. - Niccolo Machiavelli
Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen. - Jeff Cooper
It is bad to have to fight. It is worse to have to fight and lose.

Also, many shoot lead bullets and that's usually a no-no in Octagonal barrels.

I have heard the same. It has been advised before (I think on this Forum), that when shooting a Glock with the original polygon barrel, shoot jacketed ammo, otherwise a LRN bullet will lead up the barrel. It has also been mentioned that Lone Wolf makes aftermarket Glock barrels that will not lead up, so these barrels may have conventional rifling.

Personally, I would rather have a barrel that shoots both lead and FMJ ammo. If using a polygon barrel offered superior accuracy over a standard barrel, I would consider this as an option for a Target Grade gun.

I think a big reason that polygonal barrels have not gained a lot of traction with 1911 users is what BBQLS1 stated; many 1911 shooters shoot a lot of lead, and this is discouraged in polygonal barrels.

Some people claim lead is okay in poly barrels, as long as you clean them every few hundred rounds and don't allow build up. I personally don't run lead in my polys, but to me plated are not that much more expensive. The poly barrels are easier to clean in my experience.

I certainly won't knock you for trying something outside traditional. I would be interested in seeing if there is a marked improvement with a poly barrel properly fitted into a 1911 that already had a baseline from a traditional rifled barrel. While personally I don't think it would be a huge difference in a quality pistol, if you do end up getting one made you should post the results for the rest of the Forum.

__________________
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to shoot everyone you meet.

I have heard the same. It has been advised before (I think on this Forum), that when shooting a Glock with the original polygon barrel, shoot jacketed ammo, otherwise a LRN bullet will lead up the barrel. It has also been mentioned that Lone Wolf makes aftermarket Glock barrels that will not lead up, so these barrels may have conventional rifling.

Personally, I would rather have a barrel that shoots both lead and FMJ ammo. If using a polygon barrel offered superior accuracy over a standard barrel, I would consider this as an option for a Target Grade gun.

Considering the accuracy of many of the Bullseye guns out there, and not talking about just an elite group of five or ten shooters, but even local average Joe's, I can't believe that crowd wouldn't have tried a polygonal barrel before.

The reasons for the preferences given in this article make sense to me and I've heard them before. Meaning they don't shock me.

Cost and tradition. Also the gain of transitioning to hammer forged barrels with polygonal rifling is minimal at least now. For Colt, Kimber, Springfield, etc. to junk their machinery for rifled barrels and invest in new equipment for hammer forged barrels is not likely to occur unless there is a deep demand for polygonal rifling in handguns and there is not. Any gain received from them is minimal. In fact the gain to manufacturers with polygonal rifling is in reduced costs over time it seems, with larger contracts. As the article points out as far as accuracy goes bullseye shooters tend to prefer the rifled barrels as more versatile.

"Lothar Walther is proud to introduce its new line of match stainless steel barrels for the M1911 pistol. Now, the high level of quality that has been known for so long in the rifle world is applied to barrels for the M1911. These barrels come fully machined from LW49 stainless steel, chambered, crowned, polished and hardened. These barrels are available in a ramped and a standard version. Both are available in conventional rifling and polygon rifling. Other types will become available in the future."

As an alternative, if you want increased velocity, just shoot 185 grn rounds. Also, I highly doubt you will ever be able to shoot the rifling out of your traditional 1911 barrel...it will outlast most of us even under heavy shooting conditions. Let us know if you make the conversion and what the major differences are..of course it will all have to be crony'd.

Massad Ayoob said that a polygonal barrel gives an increase of about 100fps to a 357-sig round fired through a comparable length rifled barrel.

That's nice, but far from being significant.

Some resources say more accruate....some say less accruate. Neither gain or loss is significant.

Improved wear....but it that means improving the life from 30,000 rounds to 40,000 rounds (numbers used jusr for a random example)...I dont consider that significant since I dont live at the range and have other things to do with a majority of my money.

So......while it has a certain "gosh, that would be nice" appeal....unless it is real frigg'n cheap....it aint worth doing.

NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.